On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 09:26:29PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2023-03-28 15:20:17 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > I'm sorry but this bug report assumes an unsupported configuration: > > > > > APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, > > > 'stable-security'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), > > > (1, 'experimental') > > > > This is not supportable at all. > > Why not? Anyway, I doubt that this is related to the issue: packages > appear in unstable first, so that "testing" and "stable" should have > no effect in normal time. > > > Plus: > > > > > Versions of packages apt-listbugs depends on: > > [...] > > > ii ruby 1:3.0+1 > > > > Ruby 3.0, which is explicitly mentioned in the bug report as being used, > > was just temporarily in bookworm as an intermediate step between 2.7 > > (bullseye) and 3.1 which is the version that is actually to be released > > with bookworm. > > But at some point (when I reported the bug), it was in unstable. > See https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ruby-defaults > > [2022-09-20] Accepted ruby-defaults 1:3.0+3.1 (source) into unstable (Antonio > Terceiro) > [2022-05-01] Accepted ruby-defaults 1:3.0+2 (source) into experimental > (Antonio Terceiro) > [2022-03-10] ruby-defaults 1:3.0+1 MIGRATED to testing (Debian testing watch) > [2022-03-07] Accepted ruby-defaults 1:3.0+1 (source) into unstable (Lucas > Kanashiro) > > I had ruby 1:3.0+1 because it got into unstable on 2022-03-07.
Fair enough. I missed the date of the original bug report, I'm sorry about that. Still, I see no evidence that this is caused by the Ruby interpreter. For example apt-listbugs uses a SOAP library that is severely unmaintained upstream and has been on life support for some time now. It could be that library that is doing crazy things when the server does not reply in exactly the way it expects.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
